Topic: Self Locking Old Threads?
Started by: abzu
Started on: 4/6/2006
Board: Site Discussion
On 4/6/2006 at 3:16pm, abzu wrote:
Self Locking Old Threads?
Hello Clinton,
In the wonderful fabulous Bday forum I have twice been tricked into posting into year-old threads. Is there any way to institute a mechanism that locks a thread after say three months? or six? or 364 days? I mean, it is policy not to post in those threads so it's not like you're squelching discussions.
-L
On 4/6/2006 at 3:19pm, Thunder_God wrote:
Re: Self Locking Old Threads?
Except it seems the general "Mode" of the Forge is to not lock threads and rely on people saying "Thread Closed" or not posting to threads that have fallen off of page X(3?).
The moderation seems to dislike it when "Forced" to actually lock a thread.
On 4/10/2006 at 3:26pm, abzu wrote:
RE: Re: Self Locking Old Threads?
Yes, TG, I know.
But that ideal method doesn't stop people from posting to year-old threads and tricking me into thinking they are current.
How about instead of locking, after 6 months, a message is auto-generated and attached to the end of the thread: THIS THREAD IS 6 MONTHS OLD, PLEASE START A NEW THREAD.
-L
On 4/13/2006 at 7:24pm, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Re: Self Locking Old Threads?
abzu wrote: How about instead of locking, after 6 months, a message is auto-generated and attached to the end of the thread: THIS THREAD IS 6 MONTHS OLD, PLEASE START A NEW THREAD.That would be a good idea, Luke, but I doubt it could be done without generating a new message, which would pull the thread to the top of the list and make it appear new. Complicating this, of course, is that the post would be on the last page, and many participants will post to a thread before reaching the last post. It only takes one or two to do that, and the "six months old" message is no longer the last post. So unless it can be set up such that it does not renew the thread and it automatically appears as the last post even if someone else posts after that, it's likely to have the opposite of the intended effect.
So as not to be completely negative here, let me ask whether it might be possible for old threads automatically to gain some special icon in one of the first two columns, like the "topic you have posted in" and "pinned" icons. I suspect it would have to be based on date of first post, not last, but few threads are still current after even so little as three months, so some sort of "closed thread" icon appearing on the index page six months after the thread is opened would probably work for most of us--as long as it's clear what it meant. (One of those crossed circles might work, or something to indicate the thread is dead like a tombstone or skull & crossbones or something.)
I don't know what that would take to code, but particularly in the birthday forum (where one sees "April 7" and does not see "2004") that might be useful.
--M. J. Young
On 4/13/2006 at 7:59pm, Julian wrote:
RE: Re: Self Locking Old Threads?
M. wrote:
So as not to be completely negative here, let me ask whether it might be possible for old threads automatically to gain some special icon in one of the first two columns, like the "topic you have posted in" and "pinned" icons. I suspect it would have to be based on date of first post, not last, but few threads are still current after even so little as three months, so some sort of "closed thread" icon appearing on the index page six months after the thread is opened would probably work for most of us--as long as it's clear what it meant. (One of those crossed circles might work, or something to indicate the thread is dead like a tombstone or skull & crossbones or something.)
Or a padlock.
Seriously, if a thread's supposed to be closed to future posting, for whatever reason, lock it and get it done with. The current way of doing it (simply state that the thread is closed and then snarl at people who feel the need to post anyway) strikes me as perverse.
On 4/13/2006 at 8:12pm, greyorm wrote:
RE: Re: Self Locking Old Threads?
Julian wrote: Seriously, if a thread's supposed to be closed to future posting, for whatever reason, lock it and get it done with. The current way of doing it (simply state that the thread is closed and then snarl at people who feel the need to post anyway) strikes me as perverse.
I don't believe expecting people to follow the rules and use their heads when posting is in any way perverse. Contrary to typical internet wahoo "I'm gonna post whatever I want unless you stop meeeee!" behavior, yes. But no more perverse than expecting people to follow any other sort of social rules, like raising one's hand before talking in class, not interrupting others, etc. as opposed to gagging people to outright prevent them. And this is why it is done: the former expects adult behavior, the latter expects immaturity; the current rules define our expectations of community members: polite, intelligent, adult behavior.
Honestly, the best solution I can think of would be for a message to be generated when someone tries to post to an old thread that indicates the thread is past kill and a new thread should be started to discuss the topic -- much like the "new messages have been posted" message one recieves when one tries to post a reply to a thread and someone has posted in the interim. I don't know how much work that would be on Clinton's part, however.
On 4/14/2006 at 11:31am, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Re: Self Locking Old Threads?
This discussion is perverse, in that it keeps going.
Luke, great idea, but way more technical than I have time to do right now.
Everyone else, there's no point in discussing the closed/locked difference, but I will for one sec. As a poster here, you're respected. If we ask you not to do something, we think you'll do it, and we don't need to technically limit you.
On 4/26/2006 at 2:47am, Lisa Padol wrote:
RE: Re: Self Locking Old Threads?
A thought and a question.
Thought: I don't think it's (usually) a matter of "Ho Ho! I will post to a closed discussion! So there!" I think it's a matter of dropping the ball, and either a) not realizing that this mechanism exists, b) replying to a post before the final one, and missing that the thread's been locked, or c) both.
Question: Is there, in fact, some faq section for people first coming to the Forge who know zilch about how it's organized and what the rules are?
-Lisa Padol
On 4/26/2006 at 3:12am, Nathan P. wrote:
RE: Re: Self Locking Old Threads?
Jack Aidley gave it a shot but there's nothing official, far as I know.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 18589
On 4/28/2006 at 8:08am, Christopher Kubasik wrote:
RE: Re: Self Locking Old Threads?
How about the "Etiquette at The Forge (policy)" thread )http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1604.0). It's a sticky third down in Site Discussion. Pretty much details everything. Right?
Christopher
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 1604
On 4/30/2006 at 4:02am, Lisa Padol wrote:
RE: Re: Self Locking Old Threads?
Full Disclosure: I also would prefer the threads be locked, and this may well be coloring my perception.
Both very useful threads, but not easy to find if you don't know that they exist and where to look.
Say I'm a newbie, and it's my first trip to The Forge. Where am I likely to go to find out how to play in this sandbox?
If the newbie is me, I will go to "About the Forge" -- link at the top, looks important. Surely, it has the faq and the rules of engagement?
But, it doesn't. Site Discussion is the obvious place to look -- well, obvious to non-newbie me. Now. It wasn't obvious a couple of weeks ago. As a newbie, hm, it's fairly low down on the list of fora, so I guess it's not that important, and it doesn't have a "Start Here First", but a link to whatever the most recent thread it.
Maybe I'm just amazingly dim, and most people Get It. But, it does not strike me as obvious where to look.
-Lisa Padol
On 4/30/2006 at 4:26am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: Self Locking Old Threads?
Well see, that's the thing. The Forge isn't a user-friendly environment with an introductory page and a fun mascot cartoon character to show you around. Clinton and I never made the claim that we were here to smooth the way, usher folks in, and bring enlightenment to the troubled masses. The site was generated to suit a need among actual people who knew they had this need, and hey - it's boomed into a lot more since then, that's all. It remains similar to its original form which basically assumed, "If you want to be here, pay attention, learn the ropes, and do your best."
And if we were paid a lot, and if we had some kind of a staff or management or something like that, then sure, perhaps there would be a "Forge website" with interactive tutorials and a sitemap. Maybe it would be like an on-line course of study with little quizzes to self-check. Maybe it would have floating animated arrows to bob along and help you figure out which topic you'd like to tackle next.
As it is, originally, there was nothing but articles, reviews, and a bunch of discussions. Then forums got stickies. Could we go one step further and have an introductory page, a really good FAQ, an orienting rules-section? Sure, we thought about it and talked about it. But Clinton's a busy guy with RPGtalk; I'm a busy guy with Adept and lots more. Ultimately, all such things will come at our convenience and inspiration, and that's greatly facilitated when a third party makes the extra step and helps out.
But here's something to keep in mind. Remember Vincent's blog entry, You Are Not Safe Here? It's like that. The world doesn't pad its corners for you. Something is happening here; that's why people show up and start clicking around. If it takes a few more clicks or a little more attention than someone wants to put forward, why, that's their choice. It's really hard to get it across to people, that Clinton and I really don't care about all those people who "would like" the Forge if only they were petted a bit more, or if they encountered an environment that immediately made them feel a little more welcome and oriented. Clinton and I are a lot different in some ways, but alike in others, and one of those similarities is that we both live in a sharp-edged world. An environment with high intellectual and social standards, even one which requires patience and attention even to know how to act, is comfortable to us.
We care enough about the usability of the site to continue to refine and alter its structure, and to put in the unbelievably huge time-commitment of monitoring it. Improving it does remain on our shared screen and in our phone conversations. So sure, an introductory page? I'm not saying we don't want it or would never do it. I'm saying there's no moral imperative to do it right this minute, not compared with, say, moderating some yahoo's empty posting, diving into a really good discussion, or going over the merits and disadvantages of a publisher forum with a new publisher.
Expect to see ongoing changes and improvements. But don't give me, or us, some rosy view of a user-friendly wonderful website environment which ensures everyone will be happy. I can tell you that striving toward such a thing is not even on my horizon.
Back to the topic, I think it's clear that we aren't into the self-locking threads idea.
Best, Ron
On 5/1/2006 at 12:48pm, Lisa Padol wrote:
RE: Re: Self Locking Old Threads?
Ron, cool by me. My thought was that this or a clearer faq would make your lives easier, but if this just isn't worth the trade off (either in terms effort spent or in terms of how it would change what the Forge is), and you're okay with the occasional mistaken post to a closed thread, hey, cool.
-Lisa